THE ORGINAL OF LIFE!

How Life Began.

First Talk about the Bible and how the first three words it stated “In the beginning” now remember the Bible was written thousand of years ago, so why would the author at the time. Which was Moses stated in the begging?

Edwin Hubble looking through the telescope at Mt. Wilson Observatory in 1924.

In the 1920s in California, astronomer Edwin Hubble observed distant galaxies using an extremely powerful telescope . He made two mind-boggling discoveries.

First, Hubble figured out that the Milky Way isn’t the only galaxy. He realized that faint, cloud-like objects in the night sky are actually other galaxies far, far away. The Milky Way is just one of billions of galaxies.

Second, Hubble discovered that the galaxies are constantly moving away from each other. In other words, the universe is expanding. The biggest thing that we know about is getting bigger all the time.

A few years later, Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître used Hubble‘s amazing discoveries to suggest an answer to a big astronomy question: How did the universe begin?

If the universe is always getting bigger, then long ago it was smaller. And long, LONG ago, it was much smaller. That means billions of years ago, everything in the universe was contained in a tiny ball that exploded! Wow!

This breakthrough idea later became known as the Big Bang!

The Big Bang was when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began.

Between 1917 and 1929 — the year Hubble and his colleagues discovered the expansion of the universe, implying the possibility of a beginning for the cosmos — Einstein and most scientists held that the universe was “simply there” with no beginning or end

Here is a quote from Thomas Aquinas, which is in the Summa around the year 1270, “Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer.” What Thomas Aquinas means by this is that:

Lack of Intelligence and Purpose: Aquinas says that things that lack their own intelligence or purpose cannot move toward a goal by themselves. For example, an arrow doesn’t have the capability to direct itself toward a target.

Role of an Intelligent Director: Just as an arrow needs an archer to aim and shoot it, non-intelligent things require a being with intelligence and purpose to direct them. In other words, something with intelligence must guide or direct these things to achieve their ends.

Divine Intelligence: In the broader context of Aquinas’s philosophy, this argument supports his view of a divine being. He argues that the natural order and the purposeful movement of things in the universe suggest the existence of an intelligent being (God) who directs and guides them toward their ends.

What Thomas Aquinas is also arguing for is what is known as the Teleological argument. Teleological arguments broadly suggest that some observations are more reasonably explained as resulting from purpose and design, rather than random accidents. A patch of sand shaped like the letter C would typically be interpreted as random. A perfect circle in the sand would raise questions. Ten perfect circles, arranged to look like a human face, would cause observers to naturally assume a prior intentional action. A large furrow carrying water from one puddle to another will be interpreted differently than will a thin, straight ditch bringing river water directly to a farmer’s field.

Arguments for design are more intuitive than objective, so they can be difficult to assess. In strict logical terms, many events we interpret as intentional could be the result of something random. Improbability does not necessarily imply intent. At the same time, and for the same reason, teleological arguments derive great strength from the extreme odds involved. Just because something is possibly random does not mean it’s reasonable to assume it really was accidental.

As an example, consider the card game stud poker. In this game, players are dealt seven cards, and they select the best five-card combination. Cards are randomly dealt from a deck of fifty-two cards, split into four suits—hearts, clubs, diamonds, and spades—of thirteen cards each. The ultimate hand in this game is the royal flush, which includes the top five cards of a single suit. The odds of obtaining this hand from a fair deck are about 1 in 31,000, or 1:3.1x104.

If a player were to obtain a royal flush, other players would be disappointed but likely to accept the outcome as possible. If the same player obtained a second royal flush in the next hand, opponents would naturally suspect something underhanded. It is possible a person could get two consecutive royal flushes. Yet the odds of this happening are about 1 in 957 million, or 1:9.57x108.

Mathematically, it’s even possible to be dealt five royal flushes in a row, albeit at odds of 1 in 28 sextillion, or 1:2.83x1022. However, none of the other players at the table would accept randomness as a valid explanation. The likelihood of that happening by pure chance is so vanishingly small that it is by far more reasonable to assume cheating. At the very least, the other players would demand further investigation.

Attempting to refute teleological arguments for God’s existence often results in a similar quandary. Some arrangements of nature are so improbable, yet so necessary, that they demand interpretation as the result of “fine-tuning” by an intelligent mind. Dismissing the appearance of design by appealing to blind luck opens the door to rejecting almost all scientific knowledge; ignoring the implications of probability makes experimental observations meaningless.

The phrase “image of God” does not appear many times in the Bible, but the importance of the concept is emphasized by its repetition in the Genesis 1 account of creation:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:26-27).

From this text, it is clear that both males and females bear God’s image, and the stated purpose for why God makes mankind in his image is “so that” they may rule over the animals. Genesis 9:5-6 reveals another aspect of image bearing: all human life is sacred because all humans are made in the image of God. The emphasis in Judeo-Christian thought on the sanctity of human life is derived in part from this passage. In the New Testament, the idea is expanded further as Christ is revealed as the true image of the invisible God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15).

One view is that the image of God refers to uniquely human cognitive abilities. When people talk of the things that “make us human,” they often refer to abilities like reason and rationality, mathematics and language, laughter and emotions, caring and empathy, and cultural products like music and art. Theologians have historically connected image-bearing with humankind’s unparalleled capacity for rational thought. Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D.) wrote, “Man’s excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field.”1 Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) also emphasized intellect and rationality in his discussion of image bearing.2

The Bible says that God created the universe directly, whether through a cosmic explosion or another method. It also says that God created living things "according to their kinds." The Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. We observe genetic change today but only within certain boundaries (i.e., the cat kind only breeds offspring within the cat kind.)

Talk about how it must exist in someone's mind before it could be planned out, meaning someone has to design and program it for it to exist.

Final Causation and Existence: The objection points out that if we say an oak tree is the final cause of an acorn, it implies that the acorn is somehow being directed towards the oak tree, even though the oak tree doesn't exist yet. This seems puzzling because it suggests that the future oak tree somehow influences the acorn's development before it exists.

Analogy with Consciousness: To make sense of this, the passage compares final causation to how we, as conscious beings, work towards goals. For instance, a builder constructs a house because the house exists as an idea in the builder's mind before it's physically built. The house, in this case, serves as the final cause of the builder’s actions, but it only influences the builder's work because it exists as a concept in the builder’s intellect, not in reality yet.

Existence and Causation: The passage suggests that for something to be a cause in the sense of final causation, it must exist in some form, even if only as an idea. The house influences the builder's actions because it exists in the builder’s mind, which is the only place it can exist before it exists in reality.

Because things such as wood, nails, etc., don't care about the process of being something or creating something.

Now Lets talk about life and the way we are designed to live and how we are made up of molecules.

The human body is made up of molecules:

Molecules

The human body is made up of a wide variety of molecules, which are collections of atoms. For example, water molecules are made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and proteins are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other components.

Cells

Cells are the structural and functional units of living beings, and they are made up of molecules like proteins and water.

Elements

The molecules in the human body are made up of just 21 of the 118 elements on Earth. These elements can be categorized into three groups: main building blocks, essential minerals, and trace elements

The four most abundant elements in the human body, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, are the building blocks of many molecules:

The idea that humans and other life forms evolved from primitive, simple organisms is grounded in scientific theories, but it's a bit more nuanced than the term "primordial slime" might suggest. The theory referring to is related to the concept of abiogenesis, which is the process by which life arose naturally from non-living matter on early Earth.

Here's a simplified overview of how Scientists who are non-believers say we came about.

Abiogenesis: Scientists believe life began as simple molecules that eventually formed more complex structures. This process is thought to have occurred in environments like primordial seas, where simple compounds could interact and evolve into more complex forms.

Early Life Forms: The first forms of life were likely simple, single-celled organisms. These early life forms were very different from modern organisms but were the precursors to the diversity of life we see today.

Evolution: Over billions of years, these simple organisms evolved through natural selection and other processes into a diverse array of life forms, including plants, animals, and humans.

So, while "primordial slime" is a colloquial ( Colloquial language is informal speech that uses words and phrases that may differ by dialect, an example of this is saying, “I am as old as the hills, or he needs to step up to the plate.”) So by saying “primordial slime it is way to describe the early stages of life, the scientific view is that life began with simple molecules evolving into more complex forms over a long period, leading eventually to the diversity of organisms we see today.

Molecules themselves don't function or act on their own in the way that living organisms do. They don't have intentions or goals; rather, they follow the laws of chemistry and physics. However, molecules can exhibit a range of behaviors and interactions that are fundamental to many processes, both non-living and biological.

Here’s a brief look at how molecules operate:

Chemical Reactions: Molecules interact with each other through chemical reactions. For example, in a reaction, bonds between atoms in molecules are broken and new bonds are formed, resulting in different molecules.

Thermodynamics: Molecules move and react in ways that are consistent with the principles of thermodynamics, which describe how energy is transferred and how systems reach equilibrium.

Self-Organization: In certain conditions, molecules can spontaneously organize themselves into more complex structures. For example, lipids can spontaneously form bilayers, creating structures similar to cell membranes.

Biological Processes: In living organisms, molecules like proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids interact in highly specific ways to drive cellular functions. Enzymes, which are proteins, catalyze reactions by lowering the activation energy needed for them to occur.

Emergent Properties: In larger systems, the interactions between molecules can lead to emergent properties—complex behaviors that arise from simpler interactions. For example, the properties of water arise from the interactions between water molecules.

So, while molecules don’t function autonomously (meaning independently), their interactions and behaviors underpins a vast range of processes, from chemical reactions to biological functions.

The predominance of homochirality in biological molecules is a fundamental characteristic of life. Here’s why it’s so crucial:

1. Specificity in Molecular Interactions

Chiral Specificity: Enzymes and other biological catalysts are chiral themselves and are specific to the handedness of molecules. For example, an enzyme designed to interact with left-handed (L) amino acids will not effectively bind to right-handed (D) amino acids. This specificity is crucial for accurate biochemical reactions and processes.

So here’s the synthesis problem. If you just want to make the molecules, remember we have to make those four classes of molecules. If you just want to make the molecules, here’s what you gotta do. Molecules that compose living systems almost always show homochirality, meaning that they have one-handedness, not the other. The vast majority of biological molecules, except for very small ones like water and acetic acid, anything larger than that, they’re mirror images, just like your left hand and your right hand are mirror images. They’re non-superimposable. You can’t put a left-handed glove on your right hand. It doesn’t fit. All molecules are like that in biology.

Consistency: Having a single chirality in biological molecules ensures that interactions between molecules are consistent and predictable. This uniformity is essential for maintaining the structure and function of proteins, nucleic acids, and other biomolecules.

2. Molecular Recognition and Function

Enzyme Function: Enzymes are proteins that accelerate chemical reactions. They have chiral active sites that are designed to bind specifically to molecules of a particular chirality. If a biological system used a mix of chiralities, the efficiency and specificity of these enzymatic reactions would be compromised.

Structural Integrity: Many biological structures, like the double helix of DNA and the alpha-helical and beta-sheet structures of proteins, rely on specific chiral interactions. Consistent chirality helps maintain these structures' stability and function.

3. Evolutionary Pressure

Selection: Homochirality might have evolved because it provided a selective advantage. A consistent chirality in biological molecules could have simplified the development of complex biochemical pathways and structures, leading to more efficient and stable systems.

Historical Momentum: Once a specific chirality was established in early life forms, evolutionary processes likely reinforced and preserved this homochirality because it was advantageous for maintaining functional biomolecules and processes.

4. Thermodynamics and Kinetics

Reaction Pathways: The formation and stabilization of chiral molecules can be influenced by thermodynamic and kinetic factors. In a prebiotic environment, specific conditions might have favored the formation of one chiral form over the other, leading to the homochirality observed in modern life.

Energetic Favorability: Certain chiral forms might be energetically more favorable in biochemical processes, leading to a predominance of those forms in living systems.

5. Abiotic Chiral Influences

External Factors: In some hypotheses, external factors like polarized light or certain catalysts might have influenced the initial selection of chirality. For instance, circularly polarized light from space might have played a role in selecting for one chiral form of organic molecules over the other.

es, molecules can decompose. Decomposition is a chemical process in which a molecule breaks down into simpler substances. This can occur under various conditions, and the specific decomposition pathway depends on the nature of the molecule and the environment. Here are a few key points about molecular decomposition:

Types of Decomposition:

Thermal Decomposition: Many molecules decompose when heated. For example, heating calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) causes it to decompose into calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO₂).

Chemical Decomposition: Molecules can decompose as a result of chemical reactions. For instance, hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) decomposes into water (H₂O) and oxygen (O₂) in the presence of a catalyst like manganese dioxide (MnO₂).

Biological Decomposition: Organic molecules decompose through biological processes. For example, dead plants and animals are broken down by microorganisms into simpler organic compounds and eventually into basic elements like carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

Decomposition Reactions:

Decomposition reactions often follow a general pattern where a compound breaks down into two or more simpler substances. The general formula for a decomposition reaction is: AB→A+BAB \rightarrow A + BAB→A+B where ABABAB is the compound undergoing decomposition, and AAA and BBB are the products.

Energy Considerations:

Decomposition reactions usually require an input of energy to break chemical bonds. This energy can come from heat, light, or other sources. For example, the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide is exothermic, releasing heat.

Environmental Conditions:

The rate and extent of decomposition depend on factors like temperature, pressure, the presence of catalysts, and the chemical nature of the molecules involved.

In summary, molecules do decompose under the right conditions, breaking down into simpler substances through various chemical and biological processes.

Think about it like this. If you was to look at an A cell is a factory. It has the lipid bilayer which is extremely selective to let certain things in and not other things. It has all of this substructure in here, these little areas where energy is made in here.

It has these microtubules which can form so you can move matter from point A to point B. If you go to a factory, what you see is you see these overhead hanging machines that are moving materials from point A to point B in these systems. And the way they do this is they build these racks.

But the same thing happens in a cell. You get these microtubules to move material from point A to point B. And then as soon as the material is done moving, the microtubule breaks down and then assembles some other place. You say, well, why doesn’t it leave it there? Because then the cell would become too rigid. So it just rebuilds it.

It’s just an amazing factory what’s happening in a cell. This is what we have to make. If we want to have the origin of life, you got to start here. You don’t start here. You start with a single cell. Just build a single cell. That’s what we have to do in origin of life.